MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT ROUND 2 - Cabo Delgado April 2021

22,329 IDP 25 assessed sites 88,704 IDPs households

Focus Group Discussion (FGD) in Naschitenje temporary site, Naschitenje locality in

DTM activities are supported by: MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Multi-Sectorial Location Assessment (MSLA) report, which presents findings from the International Organization for Migration’s (IOM) Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) Round 2 assessments, aims to enhance understanding of the extent of internal displacements and the needs of affected populations in conflict-affected districts of Mozambique’s . The report covers the period from 13 to April 23 2021 and presents trends from 25 assessed sites hosting internally displaced persons across eight districts in Cabo Delgado.

In total, 88,704 internally displaced persons (IDPs) or 22,329 households were mapped living in sites assessed during this MSLA. Reported figures, however, exclude displaced individuals living in host community settings. According to DTM Round 11 Baseline, as of March 2021 an estimated 630,241 IDPs were identified in Cabo Delgado.

Sites under assessment in this report included relocation centers, temporary or transit centers, and host community extensions as classified by Camp Coordination Camp Management (CCCM) cluster. Given the active and fluid nature of displacement trends in Northern Mozambique, it is important to note that the number of sites or locations with displaced IDPs exceeds the estimated number of sites assessed for this round.

The MSLA included an analysis of sector-wide needs, including shelter and non-food items (NFIs), water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), food and nutrition, health, education, livelihoods, protection, community engagement and energy.

This report pays special attention to the dynamics of forced displacement into sites in the province of Cabo Delgado, which has been hit the hardest by the conflict in Northern Mozambique.

METHODOLOGY IOM’s Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) is the leading humanitarian data provider to support response planning. Information on conditions and needs of affected communities and displacement trends as well as in- depth thematic assessments are of key importance in addressing current HRP indicators and identifying priorities for the different sectoral responses.

The Multi-Sectoral Location Assessment (MSLA) captures detailed information on the internally displaced persons (IDPs) in sites, including demographic information, place of origin, age and sex breakdown, vulnerabilities, and detailed sectoral needs (shelter and NFI, WASH, food, nutrition, health, education, livelihoods, communication, and protection). Information is collected through direct interviews with Key Informants (KI) and local representatives, through direct observations, and with Focus Group Discussions.

Also, COVID-19 Preparedness measures in the sites were captured in this assessment.

In regards to the classification of displacement sites, relocation sites are marked with the suffix “r.s.”and temporary sites with the suffix “t.s.”. Host community extensions are marked with the suffix “h.c.” and sites whose classification is unknown are marked with the suffix “u.k.”.

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 2 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2

MAP OF ASSESSED SITES

Centro de Reassentamento Pundanhar Olumbi EPC Namatil Palma Nangade Naschitenje Nangade M'Tamba Mocimboa Da Praia EPC Mocimboa Da Praia N'Gapa Diaca Imbuo Negomano Eduardo Modalane Mueda Mbau

Mueda Muidumbe Chitunda Muidumbe Quiterajo Miteda

Chapa Chai Macomia

Mucojo Macomia Cabo Delgado Ibo Ibo Nairoto Quissanga Ibo Quirimba Muaguide Meluco Meluco Quirimba Quissanga Montepuez Bilibiza Mahate

Ancuabe Metuge Mirate Nanjua A Metuge Centro de Nanhupo BMarokani Ntocota Nangumi Ngalane Nicuapa A MiezeCidade De Pemba Namanhumbir Mesa EPC de Nangua Mavala Metoro Cidade De Pemba Centro de Centro de Ntele Ancuabe Murrebue Montepuez Pilto Mapapulo Chiure Mecu Balama Mapupulo Meculani Chiure Velho Mecu Impiri Katapua Bairro de Impire Katapua Marrupa Chiure Velho Balama Mazeze Chiure Nametil Namuno Meloco Ocua Kuekue Namuno Ocua sede 0 345 690 1,380 km N'Cumpe Namogelia Hucula

Relocation site EPC 25 de Junho Ngalane Temporary site Host community extension EPC de Manono Unknown

Ntocota Number of families by site Metuge 952 - 5872 Metuge 557 - 951 Centro Agrario de Namuapala 220 - 556 Cabo Delgado 31 - 219

EPC de Nangua Province boundary

Mieze District boundary Post boundary

The depiction and use of boundaries, geographic names, and related data shown on maps and included in this report are not warranted to be error free nor do they imply judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries by IOM.

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 3 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2

OVERVIEW Metuge From 13 and 23 April 2021, in close coordination with the 11,710 provincial government of Cabo Delgado, the International families Organization for Migration (IOM)’s Displacement 22,329 Tracking Matrix (DTM) teams conducted multi-sectoral families location assessments (MSLA) in 25 sites hosting 88,704 internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Cabo Delgado Ancuabe province. In all sites, the majority of IDPs were displaced Montepuez 2,078 by the insecurity situation. The assessments were carried 6,148 families out in Cabo Delgado province, responding to the mass Others families displacements caused by the insecurity situation in the (no. families) Chiure 1,556 Namuno north. The districts hosting the largest numbers of IDPs 349 in sites were Metuge (45,022 individuals), Montepuez Mueda Balama 299 Nangade 158 (21,995), and Ancuabe (9,439). 31 The results from the assessment show that Quissanga is Figure 1: IDP households per district in Cabo Degado the district of origin for the largest number of IDPs (in sites holding 47,206 individuals), followed by Macomia (15,429), and Mocimboa da Praia (14,218). Women Men Children Of the total 88,704 individuals in the assessed sites, 27% 21% 52% 24,052 (or 27%) are women, 18,658 (21%) are men, and 45,994 (52%) are children. Figure 2: Proportion of adult female, adult male, and child IDPs

In total there are 42,131 males and 46,573 females. That is <1 years 4% 4% 47% to 53%. There are a total 49,053 children (classified as under 18 years of age). As can be seen from Figure 3, there 1-5 years 11% 11% is broad alignment in population sizes when comparing males and females disaggregated by age. The only category with 6-17 years 13% 13% a noticeable difference is in adults, ages 18-59 years, with 17% of the IDPs being female adults aged 18-59, compared 18-59 years 17% 13% to 13% for males. There are no noteworthy variations in the demographic breakdown in individual sites. It should also be 60+ years 8% 7% noted that there are a total of 6,632 infant IDPs (under 1 year of age), and a further 19,373 children aged 1-5 years. Male Female The average household/family has 3.9 individuals.. Figure 3: Sex and age demographics of IDPs in Cabo Delgado

Demographic data for Round 2 is summarized in the table below, with a breakdown of vulnerable groups by district.

Elderly Child- Elderly- No. No. Pregnant Breastfeeding Chronic Unaccompanied District Disabilities without headed headed IDPs HH women mothers conditions Minors carers households households Ancuabe 9,439 2,078 36 8 27 5 0 93 3 3 Balama 759 158 24 26 19 37 68 12 1 1 Chiure 8,676 1,556 94 0 3 0 10 0 5 5 Metuge 45,022 11,710 610 262 120 147 7 951 6 6 Montepuez 21,995 6,148 206 1,523 3 0 11 156 4 4 Mueda 1,501 299 46 75 5 3 6 3 4 4 Namuno 1,181 349 7 52 3 14 2 0 1 1 Nangade 131 31 3 6 2 0 7 3 1 1 Grand Total 88,704 22,329 1,026 1,952 182 206 111 1,218 25 25

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 4 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2

SITE COVERAGE AND ACCESS

A total of 25 sites were assessed throughout Cabo Delgado province, housing 88,704 IDPs (22,329 households). Also, 28 per cent of the total camp/site IDP population resides in a single site (EPC 25 de Junho t.s.). Calculations and figures in this report are presented as a site-based analysis, though also weighted by site population when relevant. Of the 25 sites, 11 are relocation centres, 9 are temporary sites, 1 is a host community extension, and 4 sites are unspecified. When relevant trends based on site classification are noticed, they are mentioned in the analyses. As per CCCM classification, relocation sites are planned by local authorities and sometimes with CCCM partners with certain minimum criteria for households (e.g. minimum space per family). Temporary sites are locations with pre-existing infrastructure, like schools, that have been repurposed in this period of crisis.

All sites are reported as open, and 96 per cent are physically accessible (only Chiure Velho u.k. was not accessible due a damaged bridge). Of the 24 sites that are accessible, 19 (or 79%) risk becoming inaccessible in the event of a natural disaster. All sites are reported as safe and secure for access by humanitarian partners.

IDP MOBILITY 16%

Of the 25 sites assessed in Cabo Delgado province, it is reported that the main cause of displacement for IDPs in 24 sites was to flee the insecurity situation. In one site, EPC Namatil t.s. in Mueda, reported that 12% an epidemic was the cause of their displacement. In 64 per cent of sites, the majority of the IDP population arrived more than six months ago, 15 per cent between three and six months ago, and 15 per cent between 64% 8% one and three months ago. In the past month two new sites have been opened, but they shelter less than one per cent of the total IDP population (one in Nangade and one in Mueda). Whilst displacements are still occurring, 97 per cent of the IDP population are in sites where 1 - 3 months 3 - 6 months 7 - 30 days >6 months the majority arrived at least three months ago. Figure 4: When did IDPs first arrive at the site, as proportion of total sites In 50 per cent of sites, IDPs do not intend to return to their place of

>3 months 85% origin in the near future, while in 42 per cent they do intend to return. However, the sites where IDPs do not intend to return, shelter 71 per cent of the entire IDP population. Only sites in Ancuabe, Metuge, and

1 - 3 months 12% Mueda reported an intention to return. In 73 per cent of relocation sites, IDPs do not intend to return, while in 78 per cent of temporary sites they do intend to return. In the one site, IDPs reported that they may 2 weeks - 1 4% return 2 weeks - one month in the future. Three small sites reported month that they may return in 1-3 months. In 85 per cent of sites (22 sites) the population will wait more than three months before making a return Figure 5: When do IDP anticipate they will decision. In eight sites (42% of the population) IDPs will not return/leave return, as proportion of total sites until the end of the conflict. 3,510

180

123 101

21 20 180 123 12 10 101 80 21 20 12 10

Montepuez MuedaMueda Chiure ChNiuarnegade MNeacnognatdae NamuNnaomuno AncuabeAncuaBbaelama BMaleatmuage Metuge Figure 6: Total number of IDP arrivals in sites, per district Key Informants at the sites reported 3,977 individuals arriving in the past month. Eighty-seven per cent of all the measured arrivals were in sites in Montepuez. The largest individual influx was in Centro de Ntele Mapapilo r.s., with 2,500 arrivals.

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 5 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2 ORIGIN OF IDP FAMILIES

District of District of Displacement Origin Displacement Site

Marokani r.s. : 5,784

Nanjua A r.s. : 1,471

Ancuabe: 9,439 Nangumi h.c. : 2,184 Meculani r.s. : 502 Macomia: 15,429 Marrupa r.s. : 3,724

Katapua r.s. : 2,992 Chiure: 8,676 Chiure Velho u.k. : 883

EPC 25 de Junho t.s. : 24,843

Quissanga: 47,206

Metuge: 45,022 Ocua Sede t.s. : 575 Centro Agrario de Namuapala t.s. : 2,817

EPC de Nangua t.s. : 11,072

EPC de Manono t.s. : 1,755 Ngalane r.s. : 1,755

Ntocota r.s. : 2,780

Nicuapa A r.s. : 7,583

Mocimboa da Praia: 11,612 Centre de Nanhupo B r.s. : 3,496

Montepuez: 21,995

Centro de Ntele Mapapulo r.s. : 9,404

Muidumbe: 13,358 Centro de Reassentamento u.k. : 131 Centro de Piloto Mapapulo r.s. : 1,512 Nangade: 131 Eduardo Mondalane t.s. : 187 Mueda: 1,501 EPC Namatil t.s. : 215 EPC Negomano t.s. : 513 Nangade: 586 Balama: 759 Naschitenje t.s. : 586 Palma: 513 Namuno: 1,181 Bairro de Impire u.k. : 759 Nametil u.k. : 1,181 Figure 7: District of origin of IDPs in resettlement sites, as number of individuals

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 6 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2

PRIORITY NEEDS

84%

56% 44% 32% 36% 31%

Priority Need 1: Food Priority Need 2: Shelter Priority Need 3: NFIs Priority Need 1: Food Priority Need 2: Food Priority Need 3: Other Figure 8: Top three priority needs, as percentage Figure 9: Top three priority needs, as percentage of total sites of total IDPs within sites When asked for their top priority need, 81 per cent of sites reported it as food, while 8 per cent sought shelter assistance, and 12 per cent other forms of assistance (for these three sites, the reported needs were related to camp/site infrastructure). The responses to their second priority need were more diverse, but the most cited response was shelter assistance (reported by 31% of sites). Another important need was healthcare, reported by 27 per cent of sites, and food in 15 per cent. Similarly the third priority need had many responses with similar frequency. The top cited third need was for NFIs, reported by 35 per cent of sites, followed by shelter in 23 per cent. However, when investigating the needs by the total IDP population residing in the sites, the results are markedly different. The top three needs in EPC 25 de Junho t.s. in Metuge were shelter, food, and WASH.

Site Name 1st Priority Need 2nd Priority Need 3rd Priority Need The same data was analysed, except Centro de Nanhupo B Food Healthcare Education this time weighting for the total IDP Marokani Food Education NFIs populations residing in each site. Centro de Piloto Mapapulo Food Education NFIs Immediately, it is clear that the needs Centro de Ntele Mapapulo Food Healthcare Latrines have changed. While the top priority need is still food, it is proportionally EPC de Manono Food NFIs Shelter much less than on a site level analysis EPC de Nangua Other Food Shelter (the main cause for this is that EPC 25 Ngalane Food Shelter NFIs de Junho t.s. with 27% of the total IDP Centro Agrario de Namuapala Food Shelter NFIs population reported shelter as the top EPC 25 de Junho Shelter Food WASH priority need). Furthermore, the second Ntocota Shelter Food Other priority need is food when analysed Meculani Food Healthcare NFIs by IDP population (this change is also Katapua Food Shelter NFIs mostly caused by food being the second Marrupa Food Water NFIs priority need in EPC 25 de Junho t.s.). Ocua sede Food Shelter Water Nevertheless, this should highlight food Centro de Reassentamento Food Shelter Water insecurity and the critical need for food Eduardo Mondalane Food Shelter Other assistance in Cabo Delgado. The third Nanjua A Food Healthcare NFIs priority need is other at 31 per cent of Nanjua B Food Healthcare Shelter the total IDP population, closely followed Nangumi Food Healthcare Shelter by NFIs at 26 per cent. Once again this EPC Namatil Other Food Water is mainly due to EPC 25 de Junho t.s. Naschitenje Food Other Shelter and their reported need for sanitation Nametil Food NFIs Shelter assistance in the site. EPC Negomano Food Shelter Healthcare Chiure Velho Food Water Healthcare Bairro de Impire Food Shelter NFIs

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 7 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2

SHELTER/NFI

Of the 25 sites assessed, all provided data to analyse the proportion of IDPs residing in different shelter types. There are a number of IDPs in the most severe condition: sleeping outdoors. IDPs sleep outdoors in 8 sites, with an average of 20 per cent of households being subject to these conditions, which is estimated to total 2,780 households across Cabo Delgado. This includes 1,468 households (6,210 individuals) in the EPC 25 de Junho t.s., and 705 (2,821) in Centro de Ntele Mapapulo r.s.. On average, 18 per cent of IDPs in relocation sites sleep outdoors, compared to 25 per cent in temporary sites (of thoses with IDPs sleeping outdoors).

In 18 sites, IDPs sleep in emergency shelters (e.g. tents, under tarpaulins, in make-shift shelters), with an average of 54 per cent of IDP households. All IDPs in EPC de Manono t.s. and Ngalane r.s. sites sleep in emergency shelters, and in Ntocota r.s. 90 per cent of IDPs are in the same conditions. Furthermore, around 75 per cent of IDPs in Centro Agrario de Namuapala, EPC 25 de Junho t.s. and EPC Negomano t.s. sleep in emergency shelters. An estimated 10,688 households (42,504) individuals live in emergency shelters across the sites. On average, 77 per cent of IDPs in relocation sites sleep in emergency shelters, compared to 91 per cent in temporary sites (of thoses with IDPs sleeping in emergency shelters).

Finally, in 14 sites IDPs live in permanent shelters, with an average of 81 per cent of IDPs in each of these sites living in a permanent structure/building. This represents and estimated 8,854 households (35,207 individuals). A graphical representation of this data can be seen in Figure 15 on Page 10. Eighty-two per cent of IDPs in relocation sites sleep in emergency shelters, but 100 per cent in the single temporary site with permanent shelters.

Key Informants were asked whether IDPs had received shelters assistance. In 68 per cent of sites, IDPs have 26% 32% received the assistance, while this represents 74 per 26% cent of the total IDP population (Figure 10). Despite receiving shelter assistance, 24 sites, sheltering 99 per cent of the IDP population in the province, reported that they still need technical support for their shelter 68% repairs or to build homes (only Bairro de Impire u.k. 74% did not report this need). Furthermore, 88 per cent of 74% sites have reported that the majority of IDPs do not No Yes No Yes have access to flashlights or lighting materials No Yes Figure 10: Did IDPs receive shelter assistance, as proportion of total of sites (left) and as proportion of population within sites (right)

Distributed by an aid Distributed by an aid 52% 66% agency/organiza�on agency/organiza�on

Purchased in the local Brought with them 23% 24% market

Purchased in the local 16% Brought with them 7% market

Donated by local Donated by local 8% 5% community community

Figure 11: How did the majority of families obtain NFIs Figure 12: How did the majority of families obtain NFIs for for shelter repair, as proportion of total sites shelter repair, as proportion of of population within sites Figures 11 and 12 show how the IDP population acquired key NFIs/materials for shelter repairs. A key difference is that in 24 per cent of sites IDPs reported having brought these items with them, but they only represent 7 per cent of the total IDP population. On the other hand the proportions for aid being distributed by aid agencies or purchased at local markets is much greatly when analysed by total site population than by counting the number of sites. This indicates that the most populous sites are in these two categories.

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 8 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2

60% 60% 56% 53% 51%

40% 36% 36% 36% 36% 31% 24% 19% 20% 16% 12% 13% 7%

Blankets Tarpaulin Solar lamp Mats Buckets Mosquito nets Other Clothes Ligh�ng

Sites Popula�on Figure 13: Top three NFI needs of IDPs, as proportion of sites, and by IDP population within sites Key Informants were asked to provide the top three priority needs for each site. Figure 13 shows the percentage of sites reporting each need, as well as the needs relative to total IDP population in the sites. In this graph, each need is equally weighted and simply counted (there is no emphasis given to a need being first or second). The most commonly cited needs are for Clothes and Blankets (both by 60% of sites each representing a little over half the IDP population). Two key results should be observed: the disparity between number of sites reporting a need for Mats and Mosquito Nets, and how many IDPs reside in the sites. In both cases, proportionally more high population cites have reported these needs and they should be targeted, especially as the target populations will be more geographically concentrated.

It should be noted that the survey asked for top three needs, and there may be some preferences indicated in the ranking for each need. For the first priority need, the top cited option by KIs was Blankets, reported in 15 sites with 56 per cent of the total IDP population. The most commonly cited second need was for Solar Lamps, by 6 sites with 21 per cent of the IDP population. It should be noted that although Mats were only mentioned by two sites, they actually represent 30 per cent of all IDPs. The most common third need was Clothes, in 11 sites with 49 per cent of the total population.

44%

56%

No Yes Emergency shelter in Meculani relocation site, in Chiure district Figure 14: Are local markets functioning, as proportion of total number of sites Remembering Figures 11 and 12, which indicated that a large proportion (23%) of the total IDP population in Cabo Delgado, uses local markets to purchase the necessary NFIs and material for shelter repairs. In 56 per cent of sites, it is reported that there is no functioning market that is accessible to IDPs, creating a barrier to improving the shelter conditions across the assessed sites. The image on the right and the two images on the following page give examples of the main shelter types. Permanent shelter in Marrupa relocation site, in Chiure district

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 9 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2

Nanjua A r.s. 100% e a b u Marokani r.s. c 100% n A

Nangumi h.c. 20% 80% a a m Bairro de Impire u.k. 18% 82% a l B

Meculani r.s. 100%

Katapua r.s. 8% 92% e r u i Marrupa r.s. 100% C h

Ocua sede t.s. 100%

Chiure Velho u.k. 25% 75%

EPC de Manono t.s. 100%

EPC de Nangua t.s. 100%

Ngalane r.s. 100% e g u t e M Centro Agrario de Namuapala t.s. 25% 75%

EPC 25 de Junho t.s. 25% 75%

Ntocota r.s. 98% 2%

Centro de Nanhupo B r.s. 20% 80% z e Nicuapa A r.s. 5% 95% u p e t n o

M Centro de Piloto Mapapulo r.s. 100%

Centro de Ntele Mapapulo r.s. 30% 70%

Eduardo Mondlane t.s. 100%

EPC Nama�l t.s. 100% a d e u M Naschitenje t.s. 100%

EPC Negomano t.s. 25% 75% o n u Name�l u.k. 20% 5% 75% a m N e a d g Centro de Reassentamento u.k. 100% a n N

Outdoors Emergency shelters Permanent shelters

Figure 15: Proportion of IDP households in each shelter types in each site in Cabo Delgado

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 10 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2

WASH

In 19 sites (76% of the total), which are sheltering 83 per 17% 24% cent of the total IDP population, there are functional latrines 17% present for IDPs to use. Only 11 sites (44% of the total) reported that latrines are separated for males and female, however these sites represent 61 per cent of the total IDP population (in general it is the smaller sites without specific sanitation facilities for each sex). Around 36 per cent of relocation sites have separate latrines, compared to 67 per 76% 83% cent for temporary sites. In 6 sites (24% of the total, 3 No Yes 83% No Yes relocation sites and 3 temporary sites), it was reported that No Yes there were non-functional latrines - this does not mean Figure 16: Are latrines functional, as proportion of total of that all latrines were non-functional but that at least some sites (left) and as proportion of population within sites (right) of the facilities are non-operational/ in need of repair. These 6 sites contain 48 per cent of the total IDP population.

28% 25%

7 17% 6 5 13%

9% 3 2 6% 1 1 3%

Sites Popula�on

1 - 10 11 - 50 51 - 100 100 - 200 379 776 No latrines Figure 17: Number of IDPs per number of functioning latrines per site, as count of sites (left) and as proportion of site population (right) While most sites, and most IDPs, have access to functional latrines, the availability of these facilities varies greatly by sites. In 6 sites (with 13% of the total IDP population), there are between 1 and 10 individuals in the site for each available latrine. A further 7 sites with 25 per cent of the total IDP population (including the large site Centro de Ntele Mapapulo r.s. with 9,404 IDPs) have a latrine every 11-50 IDPs in the sites. In two medium sized sites, there are between 51-100 IDPs for each latrine. In 5 sites, there are between 100-200 IDPs for each latrine. There are five sites in a very severe sanitation condition. The first, EPC 25 de Junho t.s., with 28 per cent of the total IDP population, has only 1 latrine for every 776 IDPs. In Round 1, it was reported that there were 15 functional latrines on the site. Note: the third priority need for the site, reported as other - sanitation of the environment, indicating that the sanitation conditions there are deteriorating. Another medium sized site, Nicuapa A r.s., also has few latrines available for the IDP population, with 20 latrines in a site with 7,583 IDPs. There are 3 sites with no available latrines: Bairro de Impire u.k., Centro de Nanhupo B r.s., and Chiure Velho u.k.. In the majority of sites (15 out of 25, or 60%) there are no hand washing stations close to latrines or sanitation facilities. However, these are all small sites, housing only 21 Popula�on 21% 50% 26% 3% per cent of the total IDP population. In total, 79 per cent of IDPs have hand washing station close by. Of these, 50 per cent have hand washing stations with soap and water available, 26 per cent have the stations but lack soap, and 3 Site 60% 16% 20% 4% per cent have the stations but with neither soap or water. EPC 25 de Junho t.s. does have hand washing stations near latrines and sanitation facilities, but they are lacking in many None Yes Yes, but without soap Yes, but without water and soap other smaller sites., as show in Figure 18. IDPs are unable Figure 18: Are there hand washing stations near to latrines, as to satisfy critical WASH needs. proportion of sites, and by IDP population within sites

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 11 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2

Figure 19 shows where hygiene awareness campaigns have been conducted on sites. In 14 sites (56% of the total Popula�on 22% 1% 76% with 76% of the total IDP population) there have been campaigns conducted recently. In one site, with a little over 1 per cent of the total IDP population, such campaigns were conducted but more than two weeks ago. In another Site 36% 4% 56% 4% 1 site, there was no answer, but the site has only 131 individuals which is 0.15% of the total IDP population. In 36% of sites, with 22% of the IDP population, there have No Yes, but more than two weeks ago Yes Unknown been no such campaigns. Slightly more hygiene campaigns Figure 19: Have hygiene campaigns been conducted in sites, as have been conducted in relatcation sites than temporary. proportion of sites, and by IDP population within sites

In the majority of sites, 76%, there is no open defecation 76% reported, but these sites represent only 50% of the total IDP population. The sites with open defecation include Centro 50% 50% Agrario de Namuapala t.s., EPC de Manono t.s., Centre de Piloto Mapupolo r.s., EPC de Nangua t.s., Ntocota r.s., and EPC 25 de Junho t.s.. These are some of the largest sites in 24% the province, and the severity of WASH issues is of grave concern, particularly in EPC 25 de Junho t.s.. It should be noted that IDPs are two times more likely to live in areas No Yes where open defecation is frequently visible if they live in Site Popula�on temporary sites versus living in relocation sites. Figure 20: Have hygiene campaigns been conducted in sites, as proportion of sites, and by IDP population within sites Figure 21 shows how well drainage systems function on sites, and as a proportion relative to the total populations within

Popula�on 15% 26% 6% 35% 19% the sites. In 12 per cent of sites, drainage systems function very well, and in 24 per cent they function well. In 16 per cent of sites, but with only 6 per cent of the population, the drainage systems are more or less functioning. However, in two sites, with 35 per cent of the total IDP population Site 12% 24% 16% 8% 40% (Marokoni r.s. and EPC 25 de Junho t.s.) the drainage systems are functioning poorly. In 40 per cent of sites, the drainage systems are functioning very poorly, though many Very well Well More or less func�oning Poor Very poor of these sites shelter smaller numbers of IDPs. Figure 21: What is the condition of drainage systems in sites, as proportion of sites, and by IDP population within sites

The largest number of sites (11 sites, or 44%) use hand 44% pumps as their main water source. These sites also represent 32% 32 per cent of the total IDP population. Twelve per cent 28% 23% of sites use lagoons and waterways as their main water 20% 16% supplies. Sixteen per cent of sites (though these 4 sites are 12% 12% 8% small containing only 5% of the total IDP population use 5% open wells). In total 20 per cent of sites use small water systems. Finally, 8 per cent of sites (though housing 28% Hand pumps Lagoons and Open well Small water Tanks waterways system of the total IDP population, including EPC Namatil t.s. Site Popula�on with 215 individuals and EPC 25 de Junho t.s. with 24,843 Figure 22: Main water source for IDPs in sites, as proportion individuals) use water tanks as their main water source. of sites, and by IDP population within sites The most common problems associated with water sources were the flavour/taste, affecting 11 sites with 26 per cent of the total IDP population. In 2 sites, with 11 per cent of the total IDP population, the main problem was the smell of the water. The EPC 25 de Junho t.s. cite reported other - cholera - as being the problem with their water supply, with the last case reported 4 weeks ago

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 12 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2 FOOD SECURITY

21%

21% 58% 36%

36% 32%

20% 20% 21% 64% 12%

2% 79%

79% Last two weeks Last week More than three weeks No distribu�on No Yes No Yes

Site Popula�on No Yes Figure 24: Have the majority of IDP households received Figure 23: Main water source for IDPs in sites, as proportion food distributions, as proportion of total of sites (left) and of sites, and by IDP population within sites as proportion of population within sites (right) Food distributions have been received by 64 per cent of sites, which in total house 79 per cent of the total IDP population (or 55% of relocation sites and 67% of temporary sites). This can be seen in Figure 24. Key Informants were asked when the last distributions took place in sites throughout Cabo Delgado. In 8 sites, with 58 per cent of the total IDP population (including sites such as EPC 25 de Junho t.s.) the last food distributions occurred more than three weeks ago. In 4 sites the distributions took place in the last two weeks, and in 3 sites in the previous week. KIs were asked what proportion of IDPs received food distributions in the site. Only one site (Ngalane r.s.) reported that less than half the IDPs (45%) received the assistance. On average 75 per cent of IDPs receive assistance each time there is a distribution. In 24 per cent of sites, though with 45 per cent of the total IDP population, the majority of households do not Popula�on 45% <1% 55% have access to farmland. EPC 25 de Junho t.s. is amongst these sites, highlighting the combined food/livelihood issued faced by the largest site in Cabo Delgado. In Figure 26, it shows that in 44 per cent of sites (11 sites) the farmland

Site 24% 4% 72% cultivated by IDPs is less than an hour away from the site. In 20 per cent of sites (5), farmland is 1-2 hours away walking. It takes over three hours for IDPs in Marokani r.s. and EPC No Unknown Yes de Manono t.s. to reach their farmland. It should be noted Figure 25: Do the majority of IDP households have access to farm that all relocation sites reported having access to farmland, land, as proportion of sites, and by IDP population within sites but 67 per cent of temporary sites did not.

44% 45% 39%

28%

20%

8% 8% 8%

<1 hr > 3 hrs 1-2 hrs No answer

Site Popula�on Figure 26: How long does it take IDPs to reach farmland, walking from their shelters, as proportion or sites and as proportion of site population In total 15 sites, or 60 per cent of the total (and with 52% of the IDP population) reported that agricultural inputs (e.g. seeds) have been received by IDP households. On average 79 per cent of IDP households in the sites received the aid when the distributions occurred. However, this proportion is only 40 per cent in Ngalane r.s. and 50 per cent in Centro de Ntele Mapapulo. r.s. Across the sites with access to farmland, on average 63 per cent of households are actively working the land. However, this proportion is only 10 per cent in Centro de Nanhupo B r.s., and 30 per cent in Centro de Ntele Mapapulo r.s.. The only site that reported IDPs possessing livestock is Ntocota r.s. (an estimated 40% of households own some livestock).

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 13 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2 HEALTH

Comparing access to health facilities on-site for IDPs, there 24% 28% 30% is little difference when measuring either by number of 24% 31% sites or by total IDP population. In 18 sites (72% of the total), there is access to a health facility. Access to health was reported for all temporary sites, but only 45 per cent of relocation sites. In 16 sites there is a single functioning 69% 72% 70% health facility for the entire IDP population, while in Centro 76% Agrario de Namuapala t.s. there are 4 health facilities, and 76% in EPC 25 de Junho t.s. there are 5. Seven sites reporting No Yes No Yes No Yes not having access, with the most common barriers being Figure 27: Do IDPs have access to healthcare on site, as large distances to healthcare providers, lack of medicine, proportion of total of sites (left) and as proportion of cost of care/medicines, and discrimination. population within sites (right) Hospitals are the most common provider of health services, Hospial 9 found in 9 sites (or 50% of those reporting healthcare access) .There are on-site clinics in 6 sites, mobile clinic in 2 sites, On-site clinics 6 ambulance services in 2 sites, and mobile brigades are present in a single site. More than one type of provider can be found Mobile clinics 2 in a single site. Though data was incomplete, it is indicated that

Ambulance services 2 one third of clinics are open every day apart from weekends, one third are open a few days a week, and the remaining

Mobile brigades 1 third are open once a week. In the one site reporting mobile brigades, the service is irregularly present on-site. Figure 28: What types of health service providers are present on sites in Cabo Delgado, as count of sites

As can be seen in Figure 29, in 39 per cent of sites with health Popula�on 16% <1% 73% 11% facilities (with 73% of the IDP population), healthcare facilities are less than 15 minutes walking away for most IDPs. In 33 per cent of those sites, it takes more than 60 minutes to reach the health facilities, though these sites comparatively shelter Site 22% 6% 39% 33% much smaller IDP populations. In 22 per cent of the sites, it takes 16-30 minutes to reach the health facilities. There is no indication for any difference in distance to health facilities 16 - 30 minutes 31 - 60 minutes Less than 15 minutes More than 60 minutes depending on site classification. Figure 29: How far away are healthcare facilities for IDPs, as proportion of sites, and by IDP population within sites

76% 75% 75% 72% 68% 62% 64%

52% 48%

20%

Medicines available Pregnancy health services HIV treatment/care Turberculosis treatment/care Cholera cases reported

Site Popula�on Figure 30: Are medicines available, do pregnant women have access to health services, are IDPs aware of treatment/care for HIV and tuberculosis, and have cholera cases been reported, as proportion or sites and as proportion of site population Figure 30 covers the following indicators: availability of medicines (52% of sites), availability of health services for pregnant women (76%), awareness of HIV treatment/care (68%), and awareness of tuberculosis treatment/care (72%). Medicines are generally more available in temporary sites, than relocation sites. A key difference is in the reporting of cholera cases (20% of sites, but 48% of the population due to EPC 25 de Junho t.s. - their last cholera case diagnosed 4 weeks ago).

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 14 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2

COVID-19

Across the assessed sites, eight report that small groups have left in the past month, while there have been 3,977 individuals who arrived in the same period. COVID-19 71% remains a key point of concern for site management agencies. As such 56 per cent of sites report that they have 56% not taken preventative actions against the pandemic on site. 44%

It should be noted that these sites shelter 29 per cent of 29% the total IDP population, as seen in Figure 31 on the right. Furthermore, in 21 sites (84% of the total, containing 98% of the total IDP population) have reported that IDPs have been informed of COVID-19 prevention measures. It is No Yes noteworthy that only in temporary sites were the resident Number of sites IDP popula�on IDPs no informed of said measures. All sites where no such Figure 31: Where actions on preventative action information programs have been undertaken are in Mueda against COVID-19 taken on site, as proportion of sites, and by IDP population within sites district: two sites were opened in March/April 2021, and two in September/October2020.

71%

60% In the past month, hand washing stations have been build in 40 per cent of sites, through they shelter 71 per cent of

40% the total IDP population (as seen in Figure 32). The sites

29% where no additional stations were build are considerably smaller. Personal Protective Equipment (such as face-masks and rubber gloves) are available in 49 per cent of sites (in total sheltering 49% of the total IDP population). There was

No Yes no such PPE in EPC 25 de Junho t.s., but it was available in Number of sites IDP popula�on the remaining largest sites. While 64 per cent of relocation Figure 32: Where hand washing stations constructed sites had PPE, only 1 per cent of temporary sites had PPE. in the last month on site, as proportion of sites, and by IDP population within sites In 20 sites (80% of the total, with 94% of the total IDP population), awareness sessions were held for IDPs to inform them of the pandemic. No sessions were held in 4 of the temporary sites. There were no such sessions in the four sites mentioned earlier, as well as another in . Temperature measuring devices are unavailable in 19 sites (76% of the total sites with 76% of the total IDP population, including EPC 25 de Junho t.s.). Only one site assessed in the MSLA has isolation spaces for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases (the large site Centro de Ntele Mapapulo r.s. with 11% of the total IDP population).

4% 20% 24%

76% 80% 96% No Yes No Yes No Yes

Figure 33: Have awareness sessions been held for precautionary measures against COVID-19 (left), are there temperature measuring devices on site (centre), and are there isolation spaces on site for those suspected of being infected by COVID-19, as proportion of total sites

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 15 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2

EDUCATION

In 20 sites (80% of the total), the majority of the child IDP population have access to education. There is little difference 20% on education access versus site classification. However, 20% when considering the sites weighed by population, only 49 per cent of IDP children have access to education. This lack 49% of educational services is present in some of the largest sites 51% including EPC 25 de Junho t.s., Centro de Nanhupo B r.s., Nicuapa A r.s., Centro de Reassentamento u.k., and Centro de Ntele Mapapulo r.s.. In the five sites where schools are 80%

80% not functional, in EPC 25 de Junho t.s. the school building No Yes No Yes is used for other purposes, in two sites with a low IDP No Yes population there is a lack of documentation barrier (Centro Figure 34: Do the majority of IDP children have access de Reassentamento u.k. and Nanuhupo B r.s.). Centro de to schools, as proportion of total of sites (left) and as Ntele Mapapalulo r.s. and Nicuapa A r.s. report a lack of proportion of population within sites (right) teachers, and in three sites there is a lack of teachers. Of the sites where children are attending, the average rate of attendance is 75 per cent. However, in Nangumi h.c. only 45 per cent of children attend school despite access Popula�on 11% 3% 19% 16% 51% to the service, and in EPC Negomano t.s. and Centro de Piloto Mapapulo r.s. only 50 per cent of children attend education. Figure 35 shows how long it takes to reach nearest school for IDP children. In 48 per cent of sites, Site 16% 4% 48% 12% 20% schools are less than 15 minutes away, in 16 per cent of sites they are 16-30 minutes away, and in 4 per cent of sites they are 31-60 minutes away. In three sites, with 16 16 - 30 minutes 31 - 60 minutes Less than 15 minutes More than 60 minutes No access per cent of the total IDP population (Nangumi h.c., EPC Figure 35: How far away are education facilities, as de Nangua t.s., Ocua Sede t.s.) the schools are more than proportion of sites, and by IDP population within sites 60 minutes walking away for IDP children. In temporary sites, education facilities are generally in close proximity and require less time walking than in relocation sites.

The conflict has strained education services that were already under great pressure. In 44 per cent of sites (with 58% 58% of all IDPs), it is reported that the majority of IDPs can 52% neither read nor write. In 52 per cent of sites, with 41 per 44% cent of the IDP population, the majority have moderate 41% reading and writing skills. This could be an issues particularly taken in conjunction for when children need to apply for the necessary documentation to be enrolled in schools. In 4% a single site (Centro de Piloto Mapapulo r.s.), it is reported 2% that IDP households are able to read and write perfectly. Neither read or write Read and write moderately Read and write perfectly In 78 per cent of temporary sites, IDPs are reported to be Site Popula�on unable to read and write, compared to only 27 per cent of Figure 36: Literacy levels of IDP households, as proportion of relocation sites. The reasons for this disparity are as of yet sites, and by IDP population within sites unclear.

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 16 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2

PROTECTION

In 15 sites, or 60 per cent of the total, there is no functioning 15% police station. In general, IDPs are more likely to have a functioning police station when residing in temporary sites. However, when taking into account site populations, the 40% lack of security is even more severe, with 85 per cent of 40% IDPs living in sites without police stations. This includes large sites like EPC 25 de Junho t.s.. Furthermore, in 17 sites 60% (68% of sites with 89% of the IDP population), none of the 60% inhabitants have any lighting, and in 8 smaller sites with 11 85% per cent of the IDP population, around a quarter of IDP No Yes No Yes households have two hours of lighting per night. Eighty per No Yes cent of sites have no streets light either, indicating high risk Figure 37: Is there a functioning police station on or near the site, as proportion of total of sites (left) and as proportion of factors during night hours, particularly for female IDPs. population within sites (right) Figure 38 presents in how many sites different services were reported to be available to IDPs, and how these proportions change when taking into account the size of the sites. In only 1 site, with 9 per cent of the IDP population, do families have access to legal documentation. In 2 sites (16% of IDP population) have child-friendly spaces on-site, and in 3 sites (12%) there is adequate communal lighting. For the next three categories, the services are available in more sites and also in the largest sites, like EPC 25 de Junho t.s.. There are security mechanisms for sites in 48 per cent of sites (with 79% of the IDP population. There are referral mechanisms for GBV in 56 per cent of sites (87% of population), and psychosocial support mechanisms in 36 per cent of sites (75% of population). While there are security mechanisms present with equal likelihood in both relocation and temporary sites, GBV referral mechanisms are present in 73 per cent of relocation sites compared to only 44 per cent of temporary sites. 87% 79% 75%

56% 48% 36%

16% 12% 12% 9% 8% 4%

Families have legal Child friendly spaces Adequate communal Security mechanism for Referral mechanisms Psychosocial support documenta�on on-site ligh�ng sites for GBV mechanisms

Site Popula�on Figure 38: Do families have legal documentation, are there child-friendly spaces on-site, is there adequate communal lighting, is there a security mechanism/provider on-site, is there a referral mechanism for GBV, are there psychosocial support mechanisms, as proportion or sites and as proportion of site population

68% In 68 per cent of sites, with 42 per cent of the IDP population, the host community is willing to help for as 42% 43% long as is needed. In 8 per cent of sites (14% of population) the host community is still willing to help, but only for a 24% limited time. In 24 per cent of sites (6 sites), but with 43 per 14% 8% cent of the IDP population (including large sites like EPC

25 de Junho t.s., Centro de Nanhupo B r.s., and Nicuapa A Site Popula�on r.s.), it is reported that there are already tensions developing Host community willing to help between the IDPs and the host community. Tensions are Host community willing to help, but for limited �me slightly more likely to be found with host communities There are already tensions around relocation sites. Figure 39: Literacy levels of IDP households, as proportion of sites, and by IDP population within sites

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 17 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Key Informants at sites were asked to provide the three most prevalent avenues for communication used by the IDP community, to make complaints and/or suggestions to humanitarian actors Figure 40. The majority of sites (64%) reported that community leaders/groups presenting the community were used to communicate, followed by local government (60%), and radio based communication (in 52% of sites). Previously, 38 per cent of sites had reported using religious leaders/groups to communicate, but only 8 per cent cited this option in Round 2.

Community Community 64% 52% leaders/groups leaders/groups Local government Local government 60% 52%

Radio 32% Radio 52% Humanitarian 32% agencies Telephone 28% Social media 28% Volunteers 24% Religious 12% leaders/groups Humanitarian 16% agencies Volunteers 8% Religious 8% leaders/groups Sugges�on box 8%

Sugges�on box 8% Telephone 8%

Figure 40: What are the main communication mechanisms Figure 41: What are the main communication mechanisms used by IDPs to communicate with the humanitarian used by the humanitarian community to communicate with community, as proportion of total sites IDPs, as proportion of total sites

The top channels for information used by humanitarian organizations to inform/provide information to the community, Figure 41, are community leaders/groups and local government (each being a key channel in 52% of sites). The second most prevalent channels are the use of social media/Internet and direct contact from humanitarian agencies (32% of sites).

There are social organization activities focused on key Health 36% sectors occurring throughout sites in Cabo Delgado. In Protec�on 28% 36 per cent of sites, there have been activities focused on WASH 24% health, in 28 per cent of sites there have been protection Educa�on 24% activities, 24 per cent for both WASH and education. Youth 20% There have only been GBV related activities in 12 per cent of sites, and child protection in 8 per cent. Given PSEA 16% the protection issues mentioned in the previous section, Nutri�on 12% this could be a a point of focus in the near future. GBV 12%

Child protec�on 8%

Figure 42: What kinds of social organising and event have been conducted for IDPs by volunteers and community leaders, as proportion of total sites

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 18 MOZAMBIQUE: CABO DELGADO MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 2

ENERGY

5% 1% 5% 1% 5% 1% 8% As can be seen in Figure 43, the majority of sites (88%, or 4% 22 sites with 94% of the total IDP population) report that none of the inhabitants have access to 4 hours of electricity per day. Two smaller sites, Marrupa r.s., and Chiure Velho u.k., reported that around a quarter of IDPs present have

access to electricity. In total 7 sites (or 24% of the total, 88% with 22% of the population) reported having access to

solar lanterns, though often there are only enough for a 94% 94% 94% small segment of the community to have access. In 1 site, A few (around 25%) Do not know /No Answer None (around 0%) Bairro de Impire u.k., households reported having access to Figure 43: What proportion of IDP households in the site has solar home systems (this is the same site that provided no access to 4 hours of electricity per day, as proportion of total answer to the indicator in Figure 43). of sites (left) and as proportion of population within sites (right)

48% 43%

32%

20% 21% 16% 16% 14%

Unreliability Broken equipment Not enough ligh�ng for Cost of power households

Site Popula�on

Figure 44: What are the main problems faced by IDP households wishing to light their homes or local area, as proportion of total sites and as proportion of total IDP population

In Centro de Ntele Mapapulo r.s., with about 11 per cent of the total IDP population, about a quarter of IDPs have access to cooling items such as fans. No other sites reported this. The primary light sources are as follows: no lighting 40 per cent of sites, solar lanterns (32%), flashlights (8%), candles (4%), burning sticks (4%), torches (4%), and light from fires and cooking sources (4%). While 44 per cent of temporary sites report that at least a few IDP households on sight have access to electricity for lighting, this is only 9 per cent for relocation sites. The main issues with lighting can be seen in Figure 45. Lack of lighting (in 48% of sites) and unreliability of lighting sources (32% of sites) are the main barriers, followed by the cost of power for the light sources (20%). The main power sources for the water supply are as follows: hand pumps 48 per cent of sites, solar panels (20%), petrol generators (8%), electrical grid (4%), water trucking (4% - EPC 25 de Junho t.s.), windmill (4%).

For more information or to report an alert, please contact: [email protected] DTM information products: http://displacement.iom.int/mozambique DTM activities are supported by:

IOM MOZAMBIQUE 19